He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

Honest Bender:WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?

Well, I'm incredibly glad he did what he did. I WANT to know when my government is f*cking me over. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted just like Manning. They did break the law, but I'm glad both of them did it. With Manning, you saw how the government covers up war crimes (accidents *cough* *cough*) and how our diplomatic cables show we act like complete assholes in a lot of ways. We knew that, but it's nice to see the proof and remind some of the wet brains from time to time, even if they won't listen.

They violated MAJOR secrecy laws. When I got my TS/SCI clearance, they investigated everything about me and then I had to sit down with some fat dude from OPM and tell him all my deepest darkest secrets. People who violate those laws have gotten lots of people killed.

However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.

NewportBarGuy:Honest Bender: WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?

Well, I'm incredibly glad he did what he did. I WANT to know when my government is f*cking me over. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted just like Manning. They did break the law, but I'm glad both of them did it. With Manning, you saw how the government covers up war crimes (accidents *cough* *cough*) and how our diplomatic cables show we act like complete assholes in a lot of ways. We knew that, but it's nice to see the proof and remind some of the wet brains from time to time, even if they won't listen.

They violated MAJOR secrecy laws. When I got my TS/SCI clearance, they investigated everything about me and then I had to sit down with some fat dude from OPM and tell him all my deepest darkest secrets. People who violate those laws have gotten lots of people killed.

However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.

No law was broken. What part of "Congress shall make NO law" don't you people understand? Anybody who gets killed as a result of these leaks is doing something worthy of death to begin with... good riddance to them.

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional. That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

vpb:That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

Actually, I would have thought a lot more of Snowden had he just revealed domestic spying activities.

In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that he's something we needed. That needed to be thrown back in our faces, as I've made the point time and time again we allowed a continual slide into what we have today through our apathy and fear of "terrorism" over the last decade+.

That said, the point I stopped respecting him is the point that foreign intelligence operations and espionage operations against foreign countries also were leaked.

MurphyMurphy:If good reform ever makes it through this mile deep quagmire of shiat,

the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

/Yeah, he broke the rules. But if you want to make an omelet....//I'll take a crime of truth by an individual over a crime of deception by my government ANY day of the week.

Nothing is delicious about any of this. Anybody who delights in any of this is yet another consumer of bullsh*t. you can be as outraged as you want, but typically, the more outraged you are, the more full of sh*t you are. Here's the truth of the matter:

* The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.* They are aware of this* Everybody with a brain assumed this* The fact that they hired a complete imbecile like Snowden without vetting him is evidence of this* The fact that they invented top secret yet wasteful programs to keep the imbeciles they hired busy, only to fill their vicious cycle of a funding quota is evidence of this* Everybody with a brain has been vindicated* The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves* So will the PATRIOT Act

If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point. This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it. It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.

thamike:The NSA is a bloated, redundant, obsolete government program.* They are aware of this* Everybody with a brain assumed this

Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?

thamike:The NSA is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves* So will the PATRIOT Act

Not denying that at all.

thamike:If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point.

No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.

thamike:This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it. It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

thamike:This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.

I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.

hardinparamedic:Would you care to expand on "why anyone with a brain would think the NSA is an obsolete program" when their entire existence is dedicated to SIGINT?

I'm curious about your insane troll logic on this one?

"Troll" has no purpose here. And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now. I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

hardinparamedic:No, quite frankly that's utter bullshiat. Someone can be aghast that these events occurred, and still have a problem with some of the motives and amount of unrelated information that was released along with it.

Being aghast is a vocation it seems.

Pot, kettle. Also, if this was about finding waste and abuse, why did Snowden release information about foreign intelligence operations by the NSA which were completely legal and within their charter to perform?

Because he's an imbecile. Also, "pot, kettle" serves no purpose here.

I don't think anyone other than you at this point in the thread is trying to make this personal. Turn the projector off, and let's talk.

I don't know...

MurphyMurphy:the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Maybe you should wait for those people to show up. Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.

Amazingly, Clapper has said something that is right. I would like to think he realizes that things have quickly grown out of control due to advances in technology. I actually think that he wants all the controversy to go away so that they can go back to business as usual. Same with all the big tech companies.

Honest Bender:He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

Tyrone Slothrop:Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.

Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.

max_pooper:Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

That make secret rulings and determine the limits of privacy and individual security with decisions that you cannot discuss or appeal.

I understand and agree that we need something like the NSA and FISA as the world we live in is not a nice place. However, that does not mean that the specific forms they have taken are appropriate or constitutional.

The idea of secret courts making secret findings about the constitution is incredibly disturbing.

ghare:Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.

Exactly. No one should ever tell on anyone, anywhere, ever. Especially if laws are being broken. Especially if the government is breaking them. No sir.

The difference being that the Judicial Branch determined that the Executive Branch did not break the law written by the Legislative Branch. The only next step is for the Legislative Branch to reign in these practices with additional legislation which they have so far refused to do.

thamike:"Troll" has no purpose here. And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now. I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

hardinparamedic:thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here. And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now. I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.

The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.

hardinparamedic:I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

So you meant the "collective you" just as I did? Next time, let the MurphyMurphy types defend themselves, especially if you agree with someone else.

hardinparamedic:thamike: "Troll" has no purpose here. And SIGINT wasn't the only thing the NSA was doing, which was the case only because there's a limit to how much SIGINT is necessary, which would explain the mess they are in now. I might have rephrased that as "the NSA has created an obsolete program, or has overcast itself into redundancy" but, again, an intuitive person would have gotten the gist based on the rest of it.

I can see that being a better rephrasing.

As an interesting historical side note, didn't the CIA have a presidential directive issued to them in the 1970s not to do things to American citizens inside the United States, when they were trying to do the same thing?

I kind of think it does, Mike. There seems to be this prevailing "all or nothing" idea on this topic that you either have to support Snowden 100% in what he did, OR you think the NSA is perfectly OK doing what they did. There is no middle ground to be had.

I don't think you're the kind of person that does that, but there are plenty of them that DO post on FARK.

thamike: I don't know...

MurphyMurphy: the butthurt from the "Snowden is teh Satan!" people is going to be absolutely delicious.

Yeah. You got me there. :)

max_pooper: Snowden is the only one who broke the law.

The only reason the NSA didn't "break the law" is that they found a loophole to exploit. They definitely violated the spirit of the laws created to regulate their activities.

If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?

For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically make these practices illegal.

If you really want to do something about this, write your congressman or work on a campaign to replace him with somebody who will fight change these laws.

Honest Bender:He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF? How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic? He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of). You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power? The fark is wrong with your brain? Am I taking crazy pills?

Because it wasn't heroic. But this is an issue so wrapped-up in emotion and confirmation bias that pointing out the issues with Snowden falls on deaf ears.

LordJiro:The spirit doesn't mean jack shiat. If they used a loophole to avoid technically breaking the law, then they didn't break the law.

People seem to think that saying the NSA didn't break the law means agreeing with the NSA's methods. It very obviously does not: 'Legal' and 'right' are not the same thing.

Right. It's all in the game, yo. Snowden got bored of playing for the NSA, and the DoJ got tired of the NSA's game.

This idea of shock and outrage at the lack of government transparency--in the face of unprecedented government transparency--leaves me with little to no sympathy for either side of the warring factions of The Rended Garment Collective.

Honest Bender:He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).

You're missing the point. They're not violations because they're legal, sanctified by a court. Like it or not they are legal.

Now, if the law is unconstitutional then that's has to work it's way through the courts too. (and should) But no one should kid themselves thinking the NSA just did whatever the hell it wanted. They're hypersensitive to legalities and lean on their lawyers and FISA to give them the green light.

max_pooper:For the record, I stand in that middle ground. I don't believe the NSA should be doing what they are doing but I believe they are operating under the law which is why I believe Snowden is the only one who broke the law. biatching about the NSA or the President or the FISA court doesn't address who is at fault. Congress is the only body that can change the law to specifically make these practices illegal.

Notice that nobody's b*tching about their telecoms selling them out without notification. No, that would make them bad consumers. And that's just a totally unpalatable revelation.

NewportBarGuy:However, especially in the Snowden case, and less so in the Manning case, these were not attempts to harm but inform the public about what violent and powerful men do in the middle of the night on our behalf. Some thing I'm ok not knowing about. Using our own foreign intelligence gathering assets on you and me with absolutely no cause? No. I want to know about that and I'm glad it happened.

Snowden went into the job "knowing what the government was up to" and cherry-picking his information. He wasn't an analyst, like he claimed, and is basing his conclusion on a subset of documents and doesn't include any of the instruction that comes with being part of a program. Combine that with his statements about US spying contradicting the documents he released, and it's amazing people are so easily hoodwinked when they're told a story they believe is already true.

Him going to Russia has made it a lot harder to make it a case that he was looking out for America, though. They get to use a lot of propaganda against him.

Well, it certainly makes his statement that he refuses to live in a society that allows that kind of surveillance an outright lie. I mean, it's not like he was taking off in an airplane with US security agents driving down the runway in pursuit a la the movie Argo. He could have easily booked a flight for Ecuador to begin with.

vpb:That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

Muta:vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

Muta:I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

hardinparamedic:Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

badhatharry:hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

You know there is a difference between illegal and unjust correct?

There are plenty of people that wish for the intilligence agencies to be reigned in that understand that what they are doing is currently legal.

badhatharry:hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

What is legal is not always right. Just as what is right is not always legal. Why is that such a hard concept for you chucklefarks to understand?

Pointing out that the NSA broke no laws, while Snowden *did* break the law, is NOT justifying the NSA's actions. It's saying that the law needs to be farking fixed.

thamike:If you get all emotional about any particular player in this fiasco being a hero or a villain, you're missing the point. This is a simple case of the system finding waste, fraud and abuse and having to deal with it. It has jack sh*t to do with you, your personality, your whims, your inflated idea of your own privacy, or any other simplistic little sh*t you feel you need to justify your existence with by immediately attaching your identity to like some brainless remora.

This is not and never was about you or anyone you know, and that should make you comfortable.

"Nothing to see here people! Move along, move along..."

How do you know who I know? :P

Seriously though, how can you even make a statement like that?

As has been repeated more than a thousand times over in these discussions, no one really knows the scope of jack shiat at this point. The evidence suggests the intelligence gathered from these programs has exceeded their mandate within the organization and even if it didn't, we have evidence the intelligence has traveled beyond the organization itself and is being leaked to extra-NSA groups which falls compeltely outside the alleged oversight mechanics over the NSA itself.

A sane discussion is found in the rational middle as hardin pointed out. You decry people insisting on an extreme interpretation of the events but you are doing the same thing.

Your insistance there is nothing more to it than a typical D.C. bureaucratic mess is as retarded on its face as someone who suggests the NSA is after them personally and every action they take is an attack on their 'sovereign citizenry'.

And the audacity to state that no one's privacy concerns are applicable here?... wow. Troll on, man.

thamike:Maybe you should wait for those people to show up. Then you can have the calm yet illuminating conversation you are so obviously seeking.

Did you just post compeltely seperate replies back to back against one of my posts? lol

At this point I don't think you need me here, you seem capable of holding the conversation all by yourself. Between yourself and yourself.

LordJiro:badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

What is legal is not always right. Just as what is right is not always legal. Why is that such a hard concept for you chucklefarks to understand?

Pointing out that the NSA broke no laws, while Snowden *did* break the law, is NOT justifying the NSA's actions. It's saying that the law needs to be farking fixed.

Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Muta:vpb: That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

Everyone is a traitor!

Did you put your seatbelt on this morning?

NO?!?!?THIS IS A TIME OF WAR! YOUR ACTS ARE PUNISHBLE BY DEATH!

max_pooper:badhatharry: hardinparamedic: Muta: I find it interesting the government surveillance slappies will come out of the wood work to declare Snowden a traitor yet ignore the hundreds, if not, thousands of NSA and FBI agents who also broke the law by spying on innocent Americans.

[Citation needed] - who

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad- is -seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They admit to spying on Americans. They say it is legal because they only are "targeting" people overseas. In this process they gather up all of the communications. Then they go through it and delete anything not relevant. So what's the problem, citizen?

You know there is a difference between illegal and unjust correct?

There are plenty of people that wish for the intilligence agencies to be reigned in that understand that what they are doing is currently legal.

Legal is a tricky word. And 'currently' is most definitely the operative word there.

Which is why citing it's legality is redundant if not just stupid. That very opinion is at the root of the discussion and is being challenged by the discussion every day. If it weren't we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Is it legal? We'll see.For now? Sure you bet it is... unless of course it's later decided it isn't. :P

badhatharry:Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)